The Case of Reuters

A news agency that will not call a terrorist a terrorist

After Agence France Presse (AFP), Reuters is the world’s oldest international
news agency – which is one reason why it retains rather an august
reputation.

The article below deals primarily with Reuters’ coverage of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and formed part of the National Review’s
special Media Issue in July 2004. I was not as critical about Reuters’ approach to the Arab world
as others have been. One commentator, for example, maintains that Reuters
is so sympathetic to Islamic militants that it should be renamed “Al
Reuters”.

Nevertheless my article provoked a lengthy response from David Schlesinger,
“Global Managing Editor, Head of Editorial Operations, Reuters,”
which even in an edited form took up most of the letters page of a subsequent
edition of The National Review.

After the article below, I attach Mr. Schlesinger’s letter in its
published, edited form, together with my response in the National Review
(or as much as I could give in the space allotted), and an article
that appeared a few days later in the New York Times business section on
Mr. Schlesinger and Reuters.

Sources in Reuters tell me that the article below was discussed at length behind closed
doors both in Reuters’ Jerusalem bureau and in the London office that
oversees that bureau. And since it was published, whatever Mr. Schlesinger’s
protestations, Reuters coverage of Israel has become a little more balanced
(at least for the time being).

Nevertheless Israel is still often given a rough ride by Reuters.

It is ironic, incidentally, that the Jewish state should bear the brunt
of Reuters’ bias, given that the original founder of the agency, Paul
Julius Reuter, was the son of a rabbi.

-- Tom Gross

THE CASE OF REUTERS

By Tom Gross

Reuters was the first in Europe to report
news of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination

MANY people
still think of Reuters as the Rolls-Royce of news agencies. Just as the
House of Morgan was once synonymous with good banking, Reuters has long
been synonymous with good news-gathering. In 1940, there was even a Hollywood
film about Paul Julius Reuter, the German-Jewish immigrant to London who
as early as 1851 began transmitting stock-market quotes between London and
Paris via the new Calais-Dover cable. (Two years earlier he had ingeniously
used pigeons to fly stock prices between Aachen and Brussels.)

His agency quickly established a reputation in Europe for being the first
to report scoops from abroad, such as news of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination.
Today, almost every major news outlet in the world subscribes. Operating
in 200 cities in 94 countries, Reuters produces text in 19 languages, as
well as photos and television footage from around the world.

Though it may report in a largely neutral way on many issues, Reuters’s
coverage of the Middle East is deeply flawed. It is symptomatic, for instance,
that Reuters’s global head of news, Stephen Jukes, banned the use
of the word “terrorist” to describe the perpetrators of the
September 11 attacks. Even so, such is the aura still surrounding Reuters
that news editors from Los Angeles to Auckland automatically assume that
text, photos, and film footage provided by Reuters will be fair and objective.
Reuters and Associated Press copy is simply inserted into many correspondents’
reports – even in papers such as the New York Times and Washington
Post – without, it often seems, so much as a second thought given
to its accuracy.

This has led to some misleading reporting from Iraq, and still worse coverage
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The newswires are much more influential
in setting the news (and hence diplomatic) agenda of that struggle than
most people realize.

“REUTERS SETS THE TONE AND SPIN IS EVERYTHING”

One veteran American newspaper correspondent in Jerusalem, eager to maintain
anonymity so as not to jeopardize relations with his anti-Israel colleagues,
points out that “whereas foreign correspondents still write features,
they rarely cover the actual breaking news that dominates the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. In terms of written copy on the conflict, I would estimate that
50 percent of all reporting, and 90 percent of the attitude, is formed by
these news agencies. The important thing about Reuters is that it sets the
tone, and here spin is everything.”

“If, for example, a Reuters headline and introduction say that Israelis
killed a Palestinian, instead of saying that a Palestinian gunman was killed
as he opened fire on Israeli civilians, this inevitably leaves a different
impression of who was attacking, and who defending.”

Not a “terrorist” attack, according to
Reuters

In a study last year, the media watchdog HonestReporting found that in
“100 percent of headlines” when Reuters wrote about Israeli
acts of violence, Israel was emphasized as the first word; also, an active
voice was used, often without explaining that the “victim” may
have been a gunman. A typical headline was: “Israeli Troops Shoot
Dead Palestinian in W. Bank” (July 3, 2003). By contrast, when Palestinians
attacked Israelis (almost always civilians), Reuters usually avoided naming
the perpetrator. For example: “New West Bank Shooting Mars Truce”
(July 1, 2003). In many cases, the headline was also couched in a passive
voice.

Often it is a question of emphasis: Important and relevant information
is actually contained in Reuters text, but buried deep down in the story.
Many newspaper readers, however, never get beyond the headlines, and for
space reasons many papers carry only the first few paragraphs of a report
– often inserted into their own correspondents’ stories. When
the TV networks run only brief headlines, or Reuters news ribbon at the
foot of the screen, the full text is never shown.

Sometimes, Reuters presents unreliable information as though it were undoubtedly
true. Most people are unlikely to notice this. For example, Reuters will
note that “a doctor at the hospital said the injured Palestinian was
unarmed” – when in fact the doctor couldn’t possibly have
known this, since he wasn’t present at the gunfight. But because he
is a doctor, Reuters is suggesting to readers that his word is necessarily
authoritative. Yet, Reuters headlines and text are used unchanged by newspaper
editors because they assume it is professional, balanced copy, which doesn’t
need any further editing.

Reporters of course can’t be everywhere at once. The increased speed
of the Internet and the demand for instant, 24-hour TV news coverage means
that the world’s news outlets rely heavily on Reuters and the AP,
which in turn rely on a network of local Palestinian “stringers.”
Virtually all breaking news (and much of the non-breaking news) on CNN,
the BBC, Fox, and other networks comes from these stringers.

PROVOKING THE WRATH OF ARAFAT’S SECURITY FORCES

Such stringers are hired for speed, to save money (there is no need to
pay drivers and translators), and for their local knowledge. But in many
cases, in hiring them, their connections to Arafat’s regime and Hamas
count for more than their journalistic abilities. All too often the information
they provide, and the supposed eyewitnesses they interview, are undependable.
Yet, because of Reuters’s prestige, American and international news
outlets simply take their copy as fact. Thus non-massacres become massacres;
death tolls are exaggerated; and gunmen are written about as if they were
civilians.

The true face of the Intifada:
A Palestinian boy holds a gun and a
Koran as Hamas supporters celebrate
another bus bomb on Israeli civilians

As Ehud Ya’ari, Israeli television’s foremost expert on Palestinian
affairs, put it: “The vast majority of information of every type coming
out of the area is being filtered through Palestinian eyes. Cameras are
angled to show a tainted view of the Israeli army’s actions and never
focus on Palestinian gunmen. Written reports focus on the Palestinian version
of events. And even those Palestinians who don’t support the intifada
dare not show or describe anything embarrassing to the Palestinian Authority,
for fear they may provoke the wrath of Arafat’s security forces.”

One Palestinian journalist told me that “the worst the Israelis
can do is take away our press cards. But if we irritate Arafat, or Hamas,
you don’t know who might be waiting in your kitchen when you come
home at night.”

Some of Reuters’s Palestinian stringers are honest and courageous.
But, according to several ex-Reuters staffers, they feel the intimidating
presence of Wafa Amr, Reuters’s “Senior Palestinian Correspondent.”
Amr – who is a cousin of former Palestinian minister Nabil Amr, and
whose father is said to be close to Arafat – had this title specially
created for her (there is no “Senior Israeli Correspondent,”
or the equivalent in any other Arab country) so that her close ties to the
Palestinian Authority could be exploited.

As one former Reuters journalist put it: “She occupies this position
in spite of lacking a basic command of English grammar. The information
passed through her is controlled, orchestrated. Reuters would never allow
Israeli government propaganda to be fed into its reports in this way. Indeed,
stories exposing Israeli misdeeds are a favorite of Reuters. Amr has never
had an expose on Arafat, or his Al-Aqsa Brigades terror group.”

But things may well be improving. Lately, with a new Jerusalem bureau
chief, Reuters has taken some steps to ensure greater balance. For example,
it no longer claims Hamas’s goal is merely “to set up an independent
state in the West Bank and Gaza” (which it is not), but instead writes
that Hamas is “sworn to Israel’s destruction” (which it
is).

Reuters no longer carries the highly misleading “death tolls”
at the end of each story that lumped together Palestinian civilians, gunmen,
and suicide bombers. (Agence France-Presse continues to do this.) And, apparently,
there are plans to relocate Wafa Amr by next year. Is it too much to hope
that one day soon Reuters might actually call terrorism terrorism?

(Tom Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent for the London Sunday
Telegraph and New York Daily News.)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

David Schlesinger

Letters to the editor
The National Review
September 13, 2004

[From the Global head of Reuters, followed by a response from Tom Gross]

Trouble in Reuterville

Tom Gross commits all the sins of journalism of which he accuses Reuters
(“The Case of Reuters,” July 26), with no proper evidence except
comments from an unnamed and disgruntled former employee. That is hardly
an impeccable source and its use breaches a cardinal rule of good journalism.
Gross also failed to ask us for comment.

As he acknowledges, Reuters has a 150-year reputation that is synonymous
with good, fair, and objective news-gathering. This reputation is maintained
throughout the world, including in our coverage of the Middle East conflict.

All of our journalists are made fully aware that balance is essential
in every story. They are also bound by a code of conduct that bars them
from political activity. We have a no-tolerance approach to bias whether
it concerns text, pictures, or television.

Reuters stories also go through a scrupulous editing process, both locally
and on our central editing desk in London, to ensure that they are balanced
and that no phrase could be misconstrued. Complaints about coverage from
readers or viewers are taken seriously and dealt with swiftly and fairly.

Gross acknowledges in his article that Reuters stories do indeed contain
the necessary context and background to explain this complex conflict, yet
appears to hold Reuters responsible for the fact that our customers do not
always publish those stories in full.

The most unpleasant aspect of Gross’s article, however, is his vicious
personal attack on Wafa Amr, again based on dubious references to evidence
from “several” former Reuters staffers. Gross casts odious slurs
on a respected correspondent, with little or no evidence except hearsay.
Amr has worked commendably for Reuters for more than a decade – often
braving violence and threats to report the news.

Finally, Gross incorrectly states that Amr and other Palestinians who
work for Reuters are stringers. Some Palestinian journalists who work for
us are indeed stringers, as are some Israelis. But Amr and very many of
her Palestinian colleagues in Reuters are full staff members.

David Schlesinger
Reuters
London

Tom Gross replies: David Schlesinger obviously hasn’t read my
article very carefully. For example, I never say that Wafa Amr is a stringer.
Quite the opposite: I state that she is a correspondent. I did not speak
only to one “disgruntled former employee” but to a number of
people familiar with Reuters. And so on. Reuters’s problems in regard
to the Mideast are well known among journalists in Jerusalem and beyond.
This is why writers such as James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal call
the agency Reuterville (since, when it comes to the Mideast, it lives in
a world of its own), and why other commentators refer to it as al-Reuters,
because they find it hard to distinguish its Mideast reporting from outlets
such as al-Jazeera. It is regrettable that Reuters – if David Schlesinger
is any indication – doesn’t acknowledge that it has a problem.

THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS:
CANWEST EDITORS WILL REFUSE TO USE REUTERS’ EUPHEMISMS

Reuters Asks a Chain to Remove Its Bylines
By Ian Austen
The New York Times
September 20, 2004

Having their bylines appear in newspapers is an unexpected bonus for news
agency reporters. But now Reuters has asked Canada’s largest newspaper
chain to remove its writers’ names from some articles.

The dispute centers on a policy adopted earlier this year by CanWest Global
Communications – the publisher of 13 daily newspapers including The
National Post in Toronto and The Calgary Herald, which both use Reuters
dispatches – to substitute the word “terrorist” in articles
for terms like “insurgents” and “rebels.”

“Our editorial policy is that we don’t use emotive words when
labeling someone,” said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters’ global
managing editor. “Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want.
But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable
if they remove the byline.”

Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at
CanWest could lead to “confusion” about what Reuters is reporting
and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.

According to Mr. Schlesinger, members of Reuters’ sales staff in
Canada have asked CanWest to remove writers’ names to conform to its
guidelines for the use of “terrorist.” Reuters has also asked
that CanWest add its name to that of Reuters as the source of revised articles
and to display that information only at the end of the articles. Alternatively,
Reuters suggests that its name not be used at all.

Scott Anderson, editor in chief of CanWest publications and an author
of the policy, said Reuters’ rejection of his company’s definition
of terrorism undermined journalistic principles.

“If you’re couching language to protect people, are you telling
the truth?” asked Mr. Anderson, who is also editor in chief of The
Ottawa Citizen. “I understand their motives. But issues like this
are why newspapers have editors.”

Mr. Anderson said the central definition in the policy was that “terrorism
is the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal.”

The policy has caused Mr. Anderson’s paper to issue two corrections
recently as the result of changes it made to articles provided by The Associated
Press. On Thursday, The Citizen changed an A.P. dispatch to describe 6 of
10 Palestinians killed in the West Bank by Israeli troops as “terrorists,”
a description attributed to “Palestinian medical officials.”
The Associated Press had called those people “fugitives.”

The Citizen published a correction on Friday declaring it to be it an
editing error and describing the six dead as “militants.” A
week earlier, the newspaper inserted the word terrorist seven times into
an A.P. article about the fighting between Iraqis and United States forces
in the city of Falluja. Mr. Anderson called the two episodes “silly
errors.”

Late Friday, a spokesman for The Associated Press, Jack Stokes, issued
a general statement about changes to its articles. “We understand
that customers need to edit our stories from time to time,” it said
in part. “However, we do not endorse changes that make an A.P. story
unbalanced, unfair or inaccurate.”

Mr. Anderson said he did not know how CanWest would deal with the Reuters
request. No one else at CanWest, The National Post or The Calgary Herald
was available for comment.

In an editorial published on Saturday, however, The National Post said
it would continue to follow its current policy.

“Mr. Schlesinger’s broader implication – that the substantive
meaning of his reporters’ stories are being universally vitiated by
our house style – is one we reject,” it said. “The agency’s
use of euphemisms merely serves to apply a misleading gloss of political
correctness. And we believe we owe it to our readers to remove it before
they see their newspaper every morning.”

ADDITIONAL NOTE

Tom Gross adds: In a follow-up interview on CBC radio in Canada, Mr.
Schlesinger expressed concern for the “serious consequences”
if “people in the Mideast” were to believe that Reuters calls
such people “terrorists.”

This is the first public omission by Reuters that their reporters and
editors are intimidated into using “neutral” language to describe
those who murder and maim innocent civilians in acts of terror.